We would already be in a full-blown war with Iran if they were not aware that the American people are on the verge of a revolution if they don't quit gathering their power base. We are damned sick and tired of fighting wars for the corporate agenda and that, my friends, is ALL the little BS wars in the middle east are. The United States should never have been allowed to assume the role of Empire Builder but that is what th Politicians that are propped up by the Military Industrial complex have decided is our fate and enough of us bought into their BS that we didn't unite and stop it in it's tracks.

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

Sea, I agree. However the American Empire cannot STAND little BS countries threatening the Petrodollar. It would mean an end to the empire. That is all most of the last wars have been about. Iraq- gold for oil. Lybia - gold backed African Dinar, and now their hand is being forced by Iran and their oil for gold or any currency programs.

Right now, in real time, Washington is making plans to make war upon the nation of Iran. They are using the excuse that they must keep Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. The reality behind the scenes is that Iran started an oil bourse (a commodity exchange) on Kish Island in 2008, specifically to begin trading their own oil in currencies other than the US Dollar. That is a grave threat to the reserve currency status of the Dollar. Previously, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq was going to begin accepting payments for oil in Euros, not Dollars. What happened to him? Muamar Gaddafi of Libya was buying enormous quantities of gold bullion with the intention of creating an African dinar, a gold-backed money for all of the African nations to use. Where is Gaddafi now?

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - Robert A. Heinlein - "Time Enough For Love"

I have a universal translator. A large bore rifle. It speaks louder than words and will translate you to the afterlife instantly. - Self

How many adults today look back and say "my dad died in a police action" (Vietnam until recently was a "police action". No matter how you cut it, this is NOT a good scenario for ANYONE involved.

"By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail."- Ben Franklin

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - Robert A. Heinlein - "Time Enough For Love"

I have a universal translator. A large bore rifle. It speaks louder than words and will translate you to the afterlife instantly. - Self

Had the above article not had references to organizations that are normally associated with conspiracy theorist, this would have been posted elsewhere. I am not one to pollute my mind with that sort of stuff. I stumbled across this article by accident.

What I find the most compelling/interesting is the video at the bottom.

One thing I learned a long time ago, when you do not know who is in control of any given situation whether it is politics or whatever

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - John F. Kennedy

"You took the good things for granted-now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty that you must fulfill. For every hope that you entertain, you have a task that you must perform. For every good that you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer." -George Washington

I could only suffer through about a third of that article before the huge anti-American bias pushed me away. I can be whomped upside the head with a wet mullet only so long before I get the strong urge to shove it up the assaulter's 'third point of contact'. The author has a bone to pick.
Probably some viable info in that diatribe, but it will only be taken seriously with a better and less utterly offensive presentation.
Give us facts unsullied with personal agenda, not a hit piece.......

Just my two-bits worth........

Please use correct English. Show the world Americans aren't illiterate.
There, their, they're are different words. Use them properly.
Lose and loose have different meanings.
"Im" and "Ill" mean nothing without the apostrophe.
Capitalization and punctuation are your friends.
Text-speak and hashtags get you into the ignore list.
Commas are NOT your friend when used in large herds......

I could only suffer through about a third of that article before the huge anti-American bias pushed me away. I can be whomped upside the head with a wet mullet only so long before I get the strong urge to shove it up the assaulter's 'third point of contact'. The author has a bone to pick.
Probably some viable info in that diatribe, but it will only be taken seriously with a better and less utterly offensive presentation.
Give us facts unsuulied with personal agenda, not a hit piece.......

Just my two-bits worth........

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with you on how the article was written and feel the same way I can only stomach so much. I am one that likes to see facts, not an opinion or an agenda.

I probably should have just posted the video and not the article with it. Gonna see what I can do about that. It is these type of articles that have kept me from taking Conspiracy Theorists seriously.

As Congress gets an update next week on the Iraq war, lawmakers are personally invested in companies reaping billions of dollars from defense contracts.

By Lindsay Renick Mayer
April 03, 2008 | When Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military officer in Iraq, comes to Capitol Hill next week to brief Congress, he will be addressing lawmakers who have more than just a political stake in the five-year war. Along with their colleagues in the House and Senate, the politicians who will get a status report from the general and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq have as much as $196 million of their own money invested in companies doing business with the Department of Defense, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has calculated. From aircraft and weapons manufacturers to producers of medical supplies and soft drinks, the investment portfolios of more than a quarter of Congress—and of countless constituents—include holdings in companies paid billions of dollars each month to support America's military in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Investors: Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with Department of Defense contracts

</td></tr></tbody></table>Includes investments in companies with DOD contracts of $5 million or more, according to 2006 data on FedSpending.org. Members of Congress must report their personal finances annually. Holdings shown here were as of December 31, 2006.

According to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The minimum value of Congress members' personal investments in these contractors increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percent—or even dropped 51 percent. It is also unclear how many members still hold these investments, since reports for 2007 are not due until May 15, 2008. In 2004, the first full year after the Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—had between $74.9 million and $161.3 million invested in companies under contract with the Department of Defense.

As the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have expanded and transformed, so, too, has the need for goods and services that extend beyond helicopters, armored vehicles and guns. Giant corporations outside of the defense sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defense contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public. So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defense contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them.

The Investments: Lawmakers' top holdings in companies with Department of Defense contracts

</td></tr></tbody></table>
Includes investments in companies with DOD contracts of $5 million or more, according to 2006 data on FedSpending.org. Members of Congress must report their personal finances annually. Holdings shown here were as of December 31, 2006.

Lawmakers' investments in these contractors yielded them between $15.8 million and $62 million in income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the Center found. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress's wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who earned the most income from these contractors between 2004 and 2006, with Sensenbrenner making at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaping at least $2.6 million.

A spokesman for Sensenbrenner, who has supported the administration's policy in Iraq, said the congressman's stocks were left to him by his grandparents and are managed almost entirely by his investment advisors. There has been no conscious effort on Sensenbrenner's part to invest in companies that have received defense contracts, his representative said. Kerry, who has been particularly outspoken against the Bush administration's strategy and policies in Iraq, is a beneficiary of family trusts, which he doesn't control, the senator's spokesman said.

Overseers of Defense Hold Stock in Contractors

Owning stock in companies under contract with the Department of Defense could be more problematic for members of Congress who sit on committees that oversee defense policy and budgeting. Petraeus will speak on April 8 and 9 to the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees. In 2006, members of these two committees had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DOD contracts. Foreign Relations member Kerry's investments accounted for most of it—between $28.9 million and $38.2 million. Members of the two committees held between $3 million and $5.1 million in defense-only companies.

Chairs of other defense-related committees are similarly invested. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had at least $30,000, including between $1,001 and $15,000 invested in defense company Raytheon, which has one of its major facilities right outside of Berman's district. According to Berman's office, that holding is in a trust the congressman inherited from his parents.

"It's a couple thousand dollars," Berman's spokeswoman said. "We're not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's a teeny investment, and he inherited it. He didn't make it."

In the case of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, his stock in Pepsico, which is worth at least $1 million, is actually held by his wife, who is on the food and beverage corporation's board of directors. Pepsico received $187 million in defense contracts in 2006, according to OMB Watch. "His wife's separate holdings have no influence," Rockefeller spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said. "Sen. Rockefeller, out of an abundance of caution to ensure there's no conflict of interest, has held all his assets in a blind trust since he was the governor of West Virginia."

Investing in Defense: Lawmakers with the most money invested in defense companies in 2006

</td></tr></tbody></table>
Members of Congress must report their personal finances annually. Holdings shown here were as of December 31, 2006.

Members of Congress who want to make a public statement about their opposition to the Iraq war don't have to divest from businesses that may be profiting from the persistent conflict, some financial planners say. As the Iraq war continues and companies supporting the effort continue to make money, lawmakers will have an easier time justifying their investments in corporations that are known for producing food and clothing—companies whose defense contracts represent a tiny fraction of their overall revenue.

Many of the Defense Department's contracts "will likely be there whether you're in a war or not," said Cheryl Smith, executive vice president and senior portfolio manager at Trillium Asset Management Corporation, a firm that screens companies' policies for socially responsible investors. "A standing army still needs soft drinks, toothpaste and clothing. If [the lawmaker's] position is there should not be a military at all, then you might want to exclude anyone with a defense contract, but if they want to stand up against the war," they should avoid investing in companies with weapons contracts, specifically.

And there are members of Congress invested in those companies—major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Honeywell. Forty-seven current members of Congress (or 9 percent of all members of the House and Senate) were invested in 2006 in companies that are primarily in the defense sector, for a total investment of between $4.2 million and $8 million. The average share price of these corporations today is nearly twice what it was in 2004.

Hawks and Doves Are Similarly Invested in Defense

While Democrats are more likely to advocate for ending the Iraq war sooner than Republicans, as a group they have more of their own money invested in America's military efforts. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to Republicans' $577,500. More Republicans, however, held stock in defense companies in 2006—28 of them, compared to 19 Democrats.

According to a spokesman for one of these investors, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, it's "insulting" to make a connection between personal investments and a lawmaker's job. "Congressman Blunt does not consider his personal finances when voting for legislation, especially on issues as weighty as sending our troops into harm's way," Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson said.

Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), who has spoken out against the administration's policy in Iraq and belongs to the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, had at least $50,000 invested in Boeing in 2006. Farr's office did not respond to Capital Eye's inquiries about this investment and whether he still holds the stock.

Other lawmakers have decided to sell their shares in defense companies. In 2006, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had $1,000 in Honeywell and $1,000 in United Technologies but has since gotten rid of those holdings, which represented a tiny percentage of his net worth, according to his office. According to her presidential personal financial disclosures, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) had stock in some defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007. Neither of the remaining presidential hopefuls, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, reported such holdings on their filings.

Smith of Trillium Asset Management said that lawmakers who plan to divest could consider putting that money into community rebuilding, such as in hurricane-damaged New Orleans, or alternative energy projects to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. "There's a lot of opportunities to make a double statement by taking [the funds] from one place and putting them into another," she said.

Lockheed Martin declined to comment for this article, and a Honeywell spokeswoman said lawmakers should be free to do as they choose, but that the company provides necessary services to the military. "Honeywell provides support to develop products, services and technologies to meet the needs determined by the U.S. government and its entities that appropriate the funding, and elected officials and taxpayers who elect them into office," said Cathy Gedvilas, media relations manager for the defense aerospace company. "We support the spirit of the U.S. democracy and free enterprise system, and in keeping our nation and our troops safe from harm."
CRP Personal Finances Researcher Dan Auble contributed to this report.

*This growth isn't necessarily due to appreciation in these investments. Some members of Congress have bought and sold stocks within this time, and members have been elected or left office. The Center's calculations are not limited to stocks held consistently by the same lawmakers over the three-year period.

Forty-seven percent of the members of Congress are millionaires. That’s according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which released its list of who's worth what in Congress.

The three richest are California Congressman Darrell Issa, an electronics entrepreneur worth $448 million; Texas Representative Michael McCaul, who married into the Clear Channel communications family and has $380 million, and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, whose wife is heir to the Heinz fortune, with $232 million.

South Florida voter Caesar Vazquez wonders how multimillionaire politicians can relate to non-millionaire average citizens.

"They don’t understand what we are going through day to day pretty much. They live in their own little world, and we live in the real world," he said.

He added that it does bother him.

Other Florida voters, like Delio Nunez, offer a different opinion.
"If they made their money ethically and they didn’t take advantage of their actual situations in whatever seat they’re sitting in, I’ve got no problem with that, by all means, in fact I’d like to see successful people. I’d love to see other people make as much money as them," Nunez said.
Debt and paying off loans are things average Americans deal with on a regular basis, and the same goes for some of our respresentatives from South Florida.

The study shows Weston Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz being $27,000 in the hole. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart is also reported in the red owing $32,000. Broward/Palm Beach Congressman Alcee Hastings is the poorest member of Congress with $4.7 million of debt.

Hastings told NBC Miami that lawyer fees from almost 10 years of legal challenges, including his being impeached when he was a judge in the 1980s, is the reason for the debt.

Senator Bill Nelson is worth more than $3 million, and Senator Marco Rubio is worth $380,000. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen reports just under $1 million in wealth and Frederica Wilson is worth some $1.3 million.

The average income in Congress rose 15 percent over the last six years, according to The New York Times.

Sean Foreman, a political science professor at Barry University, said there's a reason why politicians are getting richer, unlike average Americans, whose net worth remained flat or even decreased the last few years.
Members of Congress are privy to inside corporate and financial information and can legally engage in insider trading.

"They are able to get sweetheart deals on real estate. They know policies that are going to take place in the future and so they take advantage of that by buying tracks of land and later on benefiting from those investments," Foreman said. "Those who are at the bottom of the rung, we can make of it that they are probably honest, that they haven't been involved in shady deals, that they haven't done things to enrich themselves."

Congressional wealth is not a partisan issue. There are wealthy and not-so wealthy Democrats and Republicans.

Many come to Congress to represent the average citizen – and leave Washington enjoying opportunities not available to most Americans.

Yes it is. I quit a long time ago trying to convince people since there was not much on the web to help support things other than Alex Jones and outlandish Conspiracy Theorists. However, that has changed it seems or I did not know where to look.

Fact is that shady politicians and businessmen always thrive no matter what happens to a country. Foreign takeover? No problem, just collaborate in the oppresion of your fellow citizens and take part in the puppet government to help the folks at home feel comfortable with the new regime. Buisiness types, that's called joining the oligarchy and keeping your capital at hand to enrich the conquerors.
Same goes for internal revolution (kinda like the last few years). The principle that applies is this: If the corporate and political leaders have no principles they will thrive under any system. Look how many Chicom generals own companies that export to the U.S. not including how many Chicom companies are owned by the military and the Central Commitee. Does any body remember Loral Corp, during the Clinton regime? They were responsible for giving the PRC MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicles) technology. That little slip up enabled them to use one missile to deliver multiple warheads.
Biggest contributors to the Lib's? Wall street and software corporations.
History is a good teacher for anyone that bothers to study it. We're in for a world of hurt here unless something changes.